The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI PANAKANTY SATTSH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.8 36 of 2O23 JUDGMENT Heard Sri p. Satish Kumar, Iearned standing counsel for the appellants/TSRTC and Sri K. pavan Kumar, Iearned counsel for respondents/claimants. perused the entire record.

2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Chairmal, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal_cum_I Additional District Judge, at Khammam (for short .the TribunalJ in M.V.O.p.No.4O9 of 2O2O, dated O2.Oa.2O22, wherein, the claim petition filed by the respondents/claimants was a_llowed by awarding compensation of Rs.32,81,950 /- with interest at Z.S%o per annum payable by the appellants/TSRTC, the appeal is filed. a

3. The claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3O,OO,OOO/- on account of death of one Chittemsetti Narasimha Rao in a road traf{ic accident. On Og.ll.2O2O, the deceased went to Mudigonda to perform his duty and after completion of his duty, to attend another duty, he went to Nelakondapalli on his motorcycle. When the deceased was crossing Guwalagudem, near Sai Laxmi boiled rice mill at Acharlagudem cross road, the RTC bus bearing No.AP 29-2-2O56 driven by its driver in rash and negligent ft\ 2 manner in high speed dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from backside and dragging the same at 5O meters on the road causing breaking of the head, fracture of right hand, right leg and death on the spot. Hence, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.3O,00,000/-.

4. The Tribunat upon examining the claimants' oral evidence adduced through PWs 1 to 3 and the documentary evidence under Exs.Al to A9, in the absence of contra evidence on the part of the TSRTC, awarded compensation of Rs'32'8 1'9501- with interest' Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred' In grounds of appeal, the TSRTC contended that awarding 5. sum of Rs.32,81,950/ with interest is an error as the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No-AP 29-Z-2056' Further' it is argr'red that there is an error in considering the date of birth and contributory negligence of the rider of the motorcYcle'

6. The Tribunal has relied upon the version presented by the eye witness PW2 with respect to manner of occurrence of the accident i.e. offending bus dashing the motorcycle from backside and dragging it for about 5O meters on the road and the contents of Ex.A1/FIR with compla int' Ex'A2lCharge sheet' Ex'A3/Inquest 7 3 report, Ex.A4/PME report, Ex.AS/MVI report and gave hnding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus.

7. Coming to the issue of contributory negligence, the TSRTC filed a formal counter before the Tribunal denying the rash ald negligent driving on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and contending that the craim made under various heads are exorbitant and that the claim petition is hled in order to extract money. There is no mention about the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the bus has struck the motorcycle from backside. Therefore, no contributory negligence ca', be attributed to the deceased. The question of contributory negligence would arise generally in cases where there is head on collision between two vehicles and not in cases where one vehicle is struck by another vehicle when they are proceeding in the same direction. Therefore, the ground of contributory negligence for challenging the impugned order is not sustainable. I I

8. Coming to the aspect of age of the deceased, the claimants have deposed that the deceased was hale and healthy without mentioning the age. The claimants got examined the wife of the deceased as PW1 and she deposed that her husband age was 4g t 4 yea-rs. The same is reflected in the FIR' charge sheet' inquest report and PME report. When the age of the deceased is mentioned as 48 years in the entire police record and the same is admitted by the claimalts, there is no ground to dispute the same unless contra evidence is adduced. Further, as per ID card of the deceased produced under Ex'A7, the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 2O.05.1972.Thedeceased died on 08'11'2020' As such' the age will be 48 years as on the date of accident' Therefore' this Court does not see any reason to give a contra frnding about the age as ascertained by the Tribunal' There is no challenge to rest of the findings given by the Tribunal except the interest part' Thus' there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal' Hence' the appeal is liable to be dismissed' g. Accordingly, the MACMA is dismissed' There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal' shall stand closed. SD/. N.SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ,6k,,"=* SEG I To, 1 2 .1 4 TheChairmanMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-lAdditionalDistrictJudge, Khammam. 6;; iCl; Sri Panakantv Satish Kumar, Advocate toP-UCl o;; aa io Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] . Two CD CoPies +*- -\' $rAI-: {). - ^ r,\\q ?qi5 ) c r."" a-) -l _,1\ . - flr' ^,7 . ,.'r s |. \ i:i' 'i.: ..-:-.-;:: -r- HIGH COURT DATED: 2410712025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No,836 of 2023 \ + DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 6 )d \r111 | 34421 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVi PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIDENT clvtL Mtsc ELLANEO US APPEAL NO: 83 AC 60F 2023 MOTOR Between:

1. The Depot Manaoer Telangana State Road Transport Corporation bearing 2. The Managing Director, Musheerabad, TSRTC, Hyderabad. No. AP 29 Z 20561 Khammri., o"poil i"i";;;;."" ...Appellants AND , years, Student. fi:["#i:li Savithri, W/o. Late Narasimha Rao, Aged abour 40 years, 2. Chittemsetti Govardhan Sai Kiran, S/o Late Narasimha Rao, aged about 19 3. Chittemsetti Udaibhaskar, S/o Late Narasimha Rao, aged about i 6 years, 4. Chittemsetti Anjaiah, S/o Late Venkataswami, aged about 78 years, Nil. 5. Chittemsetti Swarajyam, Wo Anjaiah, aged about 74 years, Nil. (Petitioner No.3 beino minor.represented by his mother and naturar ouardian by name chittemsetilsavtnri, Wio. iaiE"r.r"r,rj.i"iiiI'nro, Aged. 40 y_ears, Housewife) fl]r"ffi]:::,f ffi,:fl]]),?;,o.f?,li.Near Baraji rheater Nerakondapaili viilage ... Respondents Appeal Under section 'r73 of Motor vehicres Act against the Judgment and Decree in M'V.o.p.No. 4o9 of 2o2o oateo oz-oe-i022 on the fite of the court of the flffffi* Motor Accident Ctaims rriuunaicum] Additionat Di;*t- J;;;", oRDER: This Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of the Tribunal and the material papers in the of appeal, the Judgment tr/IVOP and upon hearing ,f," *g,'"*tt of Sri P'satish Kumar' Advocate for the Applf r"nt and of Sri K.Pavan Kumlr, Advocate for the Respondents' "nO'O""tJ" This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the MACI\/A be and hereby is dismissed'

2.rha|saveaSaforesaid,thedecreeoftheTribunalshallstandsconfirmed in all other resPects; and That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal 3 SD/. N.SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Khammam.

2. Two CD CoPies ABK I I HIGH COURT DATED: 2410712025 DECREE MACMA.No.836 ol 2023 DTSMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \ {